Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 02:00 On Jun 3, 12:10 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 9:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 4:00 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the > > > following facts. > > > > ** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of > > > relativity. > > > > ** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the > > > MMX. > > > > ** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity.. > > > Ah, so let's capture the above three comments once again, since they > > are precious. > > Please feel free to bookmark them. It would save me a lot of time. > Thanks. > > > The null results of the MMX show the principle of relativity to be > > false. > > Yes, if you have already falsified the ballistic theory of light. > <shrug> > > > Therefore any theory that satisfies the principle of relativity > > cannot be consistent with the null results of the MMX, and yet you say > > the ballistic theory does just that. > > Well, I have also said the only theory that satisfies the null results > of the MMX and the principle of relativity is the ballistic theory of > light. Your misunderstanding due to your senile mentality is > showing. Does that really hurt your when grandkids don't come to > visit anymore? Thanks for rereading the above and deciding that it really was what you wanted to say. Be firm in your looniness! Stand your ground in your imbecility! You're a hoot. > > > Lovely. You are not only a loon, but you are an egomaniacal loon who > > can no longer put together three sentences that make consistent > > sense. > > You are creating your own reality as you go along. You are getting > whacko now. It is time to give it a rest. [the rest of psychotic > nonsense snipped from "professor Draper"] Even a psycho can be all he > wants to be in cyberspace. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jun 2010 02:21 On Jun 2, 11:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Jun 2, 11:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 12:10 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Well, I have also said the only theory that satisfies the null results > > of the MMX and the principle of relativity is the ballistic theory of > > light. Your misunderstanding due to your senile mentality is > > showing. Does that really hurt your when grandkids don't come to > > visit anymore? > > Thanks for rereading the above and deciding that it really was what > you wanted to say. <shrug> > Be firm in your looniness! What is anything looniness about the null results of the MMX? > Stand your ground in your imbecility! What is so imbecility in interpreting the null results of the MMX as the following possibilities? ** Only the ballistic theory of light explains so that also satisfies the principle of relativity. ** Abandoning the theory of relativity, there blossom an infinite number of other transformations that also explain so. > You're a hoot. You are indeed a hoot. After challenging yours truly on Lorentz's discovery into an infinite such transforms that do not satisfy the principle of relativity, yours truly have shown you all these transforms. Any reasonable scholars would bow and put their tails between their butts and execute a graceful retreat. As for the self- proclaimed professor Draper, he becomes a symbol of hoot-ship by showing more defiance. <shrug> > > You are creating your own reality as you go along. You are getting > > whacko now. It is time to give it a rest. [the rest of psychotic > > nonsense snipped from "professor Draper"] Even a psycho can be all he > > wants to be in cyberspace. <shrug> Amen to that as well. <shrug>
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 14:15 Koobee admits that his objection to relativity (or what ever) rests upon a notion of absolute vacuum, and Pascal dyscovered that; dyscuss! > Perhaps you could learn about relativity before telling us what it says? thusNso: the curvature of space was proven (with the aid of "synchronized sundials" with a friend at another locale on the same meridian) by Aristarchus; later, it was measured by Gauss on Alsace-Lorraine for France, using his theodolite. now, what could be simpler? thusNso: what is a vacuum?... are you referring to Pascal's dyscovery of an absolute plenum in the barometer? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A&A...356L..53B > Perhaps you don't know what a vacuum is thusNso: I'd like to hear more about Halliburton's engineering; is this really a Dark Art?... following, about a popular and superefficient use of oil. Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they certainly don't last very long.) As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Jun 2010 17:00 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:22:15 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:iipd06h4hji5kccvplga5pg7m4enhf8r2p(a)4ax.com... >| On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:11:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >| <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >| > >| >Quite. >| >Some theory, who isn't 'yet' able to predict anything for an experiment >| >which was performed 159 years ago! :-) >| >| Well maybe assistant professor Andersen can tell me all about the phase >lag >| that occurs when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom. >| >| That's what I need to know to formulate a BaTh theory on RI. > >That's pretty easy to do. >You could start up that old VW camper van and run the engine so >hot that the exhaust manifold glows visibly red light in the dark, then >see how long it takes for the last iron atom to cool to outside air >temperature. >Or you could put a cup of coffee in the microwave for two minutes and >see how long it takes to radiate its heat back down to room temperature. >That's the lag. Gawd! No wonder the Concorde crashed.... Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Jun 2010 17:33
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 2, 4:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee > >> >The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the >> >following facts. >> >> >** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of >> >relativity. >> >> >** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the >> >MMX. >> >> >** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity. >> >> >** Electromagnetism disproves the principle of relativity because of >> >the Aether. >> >> >That does not mean the ballistic theory of light is correct. <shrug> >> >> >> > Henri is correct. <shrug> >> >> >Your truly cannot claim to be the only one who understand relativity. >> >You see. Relativity has been around for more than 400 years. To >> >claim so would be a lie. <shrug> >> >> >However, yours truly can rightly claim to be the only one after >> >Riemann to understand the curvature business well. You know. Metric >> >not a tensor, the field equations yield many solutions (each one >> >unique and independent of the others), etc. <applaud> >> >> > There are actually an infinite numbers of transformations that would >> > satisfy the null results of the MMX. >> >> >** dt� = k (dt � v dx / c^2) >> >** dx� = k (dx � v dt) >> >** dy� = k sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2) dy >> >** dz� = k sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2) dz >> >> >Any value of k (except null) will satisfy the null results of the MMX >> >and falsify the principle of relativity. <shrug> >> >> There is no evidence of an aether or any 'contractions'. > >Yes, there is. Look up on the Doppler shift of CMBR. They found it. >The team that found it should be rewarded with a Nobel Prize whether >they deny it or not. I believe that is how the Nobel Prize works. ><shrug> The CMBR is a relatively local effect. The earth is moving wrt its 'centre'. The doppler equatio is virtually the same at low speeds for the three theories. >> So give it up! > >In the name of science, I just can't. <shrug> Well, you know that I at least agree with you on one thing. SR is just an aether theory in disguise. At least aether theories would be credible if there was an aether. SR simply doesn't stand up on either logical or scientific grounds. For instance, source independency of light speed requires some kind of absolute spatial reference. >> >Don�t credit me on that one. Lorentz was the first to discover all >> >these infinite solutions to explain the null results of the MMX other >> >than the Galilean transform of course. <shrug> >> >> .......Einstein's Relativity... > >Relativity does not belong to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and >the liar. Relativity was already characterized more than 300 years >before Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was born. ><shrug> Of course. Galilean relativity was never refuted. >> The religion that worships negative space. > >Among that, it is also a religion that worships emptiness --- absolute >nothing. Good grief. It sounds like you also worship that >nothingness. <shrug> Holes of 'absolutely nothing' start to appear in space when the WDT is surpassed. At that 'density' threshold, the inverse square starts to break down because fields are quantized. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |